International Development Committee inquiry into extreme poverty and the SDGs.

Concern Worldwide UK written submission

Introduction to Concern

1. Concern Worldwide is an international development and humanitarian organisation dedicated to the elimination of extreme poverty. We have been operating for more than 50 years and work with over 37 million people in some of the hardest to reach and most fragile places, in 24 of the world’s poorest countries. Our efforts are guided by our understanding of extreme poverty, as described in this paper.

2. We seek to address the root causes of extreme poverty, and what we define as its two dimensions; (i) inequality, and (ii) risk and vulnerability. We do this through the implementation of long-term programmes in areas of nutrition and health, livelihoods, climate, gender, and education. We engage in advocacy to drive political will, policies and investment on issues of hunger and nutrition, climate change, and conflict. We also contribute to lasting improvements in the lives of people facing extreme poverty though our humanitarian efforts that include responding rapidly to emergencies, working on disaster risk reduction, and building community resilience to future shocks. 

This IDC inquiry

3. We welcome the opportunity to feed into the IDC’s inquiry on extreme poverty and the Sustainable Development Goals, at a time when the World Bank data as well as our own efforts on the ground show extreme poverty is rising -driven by the hunger, conflict, climate change and Covid-19.

How well UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) is targeted towards tackling extreme poverty, and how effectively the FCDO policies and programmes contribute to the achievement of Target 1.1 of SDG 1

4. For several decades, the UK has played an important role in tackling extreme poverty through its programmes and investments, particularly through the Department of International Development that had poverty elimination and sustainable development as its principle focus. DFID also committed to spend 50% of its annual budget in fragile states and regions on the understanding that people living in these places faced a greater likelihood of being impoverished. In doing so it also prioritised tackling causes of instability, insecurity, and conflict.
5. DFID’s investments in vital issues such as nutrition and health have contributed to saving and transforming millions of lives globally. Improving nutrition can drive progress on 12 of the 17 SDGs including the goal to end extreme poverty, and it delivers returns of 16 GBP for every pound invested in the form of the number of lives saved and economic productivity boosted. To this end, the UK played a leadership role in hosting the first ever Nutrition for Growth summit in 2013, and committed nearly GBP 3 billion towards tackling malnutrition between 2013 and 2020.

6. DFID prioritised building people’s resilience to multiple challenges. DFID has championed efforts to support longer-term planning, flexible multi-year funding, and investment in resilience and preparedness. It has also been one of the leaders driving innovations in the humanitarian system, championing anticipatory action and risk reduction. We have seen the positive impacts of these efforts across our programmes for the people that we work with.

7. Some examples of these include the Building Disaster Resilience in Pakistan (BDRP) programme, the Building Resilient Communities in Somalia (BRCiS) programme, and the START network.

8. However, since the establishment of the Foreign Development and Commonwealth Office (FCDO), we are worried about the incremental loss of this poverty focus. Recent analysis from the Center for Global Development finds that the FCDO’s focus on poverty is declining[1]. The merger has also put DFID’s institutional knowledge at great risk, with a tangible loss of expertise at various levels across the department.

9. The UK is the only G7 country to cut its aid budget by GBP 4.5 billion (from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI) at a time when the global needs have grown so significantly. Within this, we have seen disproportionate cuts to areas which are fundamental for tackling poverty. For example, funding for nutrition programmes fell by more than 70% in 2021, compared to 2019.

10. Concern’s own experience from our programmes that were cut, with some of them having to be ended abruptly, also leads us to strongly believe that poverty and fragility indicators were not considered in deciding the geographies and sectors that received the cuts.

11. The government’s Integrated Review (2021) indicates a shift in focus of development efforts to the Indo-Pacific region, which we believe, is not where the greatest need and poverty exists. It also emphasises a continued focus on East Africa, but the scale of cuts suffered by most countries in this region is a serious contradiction of the government’s stated intention. Africa is home to 64% of those who live in extreme poverty, but in 2021-22 the FCDO’s share of regionally allocable ODA to Africa will fall below 50% for the first time in 15 years.

12. With the ongoing delay in launching the new International Development strategy, and the lack of a re-commitment to spend 50% UK aid in fragile states, we are worried that the people most vulnerable to the underlying drivers of poverty in these places will be at great risk.

How might the FCDO’s strategy, policies and programmes need to change as the number of people in extreme poverty grows due to the global pandemic or the effects of climate change?

13. The overlapping crises of acute hunger and malnutrition, climate change, and conflict continue to compound vulnerabilities for people facing poverty and undermine their ability to respond and adapt to shocks, particularly in some of the most fragile parts of the world.

14. As the FCDO finalises its International Development Strategy, it is imperative that extreme poverty and fragility are at the forefront of its efforts.

15. The International Development Strategy must recommit to spending at least half of UK aid in fragile contexts, and it must respond to the underlying drivers of extreme poverty.

16. On the growing climate crisis, it must integrate climate change within all programming, and set out a clear strategy as to how the UK’s International Climate Fund will address the climate crisis and strengthen resilience. 

17. Catastrophic hunger has been on the rise at unprecedented levels. In early 2021 at least 161 million faced crisis levels of hunger; a situation that has only worsened in the latter half of the year. Covid-19 itself will result in over 9 million more children suffering from acute malnutrition, and over 2.5 million children suffering irreversible stunting this year.

18. The UK must urgently work with the rest of the G7 to develop a plan for implementing the Famine Prevention and Humanitarian Compact announced last year, including producing its own implementation plan.

19. The recent Nutrition for Growth commitment to invest £1.5 billion in tackling malnutrition between 2022 and 2030 must also be delivered with urgency. We are concerned that such a long timescale for this commitment to be delivered could leave a gap in funding over the short term, and to counter this investments must be made at the earliest than later over this timeframe.

20. Concern is presently witnessing rapid deterioration of hunger in our countries of operation in the Horn of Africa region. The region is experiencing its worst drought since 1981, with around 13 million people facing severe hunger across just Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia. Without timely action their very survival is at risk.

21. Besides allocating essential UK aid urgently, the government must galvanise global investment and attention to this region to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.

22. The World Bank estimates that lack of action of climate change is further likely to push around 130 million people into poverty in the next decade. The UK must firstly deliver on its own climate finance commitments, while making climate finance additional to ODA, and identifying new sources of public financing for tackling climate change.

23. Following COP26, the UK must ensure that commitments made on climate change adaptation are delivered, working with and influencing other donors to ensure 50% of climate finance is dedicated to adaptation.

24. Although a large proportion of crises are predictable and there is growing evidence that early action is more efficient and effective, progress towards anticipatory action and risk reduction has been slow.

25. The majority of funding globally is still channelled via mechanisms which cause delays in getting resources to frontline responders. The UK has been a key driver of progress, for example through enabling the creation and resourcing of mechanisms such as Country-Based Pooled Funds, the Start Network, and through its own Rapid Response Facility.

26. The UK must continue to drive further change and innovations and to play its part in providing flexible humanitarian funding which can respond effectively to local needs.

27. Global power imbalances and systemic inequalities must be addressed if we are to effectively tackle extreme poverty. The UK’s policies, in particular the new International Development Strategy must set out how the FCDO will redress these and promote gender equality and racial justice.

28. The UK government should help reshape the international development approach, recognising other governments and local communities as equal and expert partners, and bringing in and promoting the voices of those who have been traditionally excluded from conversations. Success means changes to the international humanitarian and development system to ensure decolonised and decentralised development.

29. The FCDO must prioritise addressing these issues under its new strategy, and influence other donors through the UK’s role on the G7 and on the UN Security Council.

How effectively does the FCDO review the outcomes of the projects and programmes it funds that tackle extreme poverty? What evidence is there that UK aid is being used to build pathways from extreme poverty to sustainable livelihoods?

30. Concern has delivered a number of programmes funded by FCDO that build pathways from extreme poverty. These include programmes under the BRACED portfolio in Somalia, South Sudan, Chad and Sudan. They also include a number of Aid Match and Aid Direct programmes, including in Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Burundi, and Zambia.

31. The FCDO Senior Responsible Officers (SROs) concerned have been knowledgeable and systematic in working with us, and on occasion with third party monitoring and evaluation (M&E) providers, to ensure that robust monitoring and learning takes place.

32. However, it is more questionable whether the lessons learned from its programmes and investments, for example through the BRACED programme, are systematically applied to follow-on programmes. 

33. The log-frame, as an instrument for tracking programme progress, has proved enduring over many years now with many strengths.  In particular, we have had many useful discussions with DFID/FCDO colleagues at the moment of programme inception, to tighten up indicators and correspondingly adjusting programme design to strengthen the clarity to what the programme is trying to achieve.

34. However, discussions around log-frames over the programme lifetime, particularly at programme close, have been less fruitful. Questions about why a particular milestone or target has been met (or not), tend to become an end in themselves.  This has been less helpful in applying any learning to a wider understanding of extreme poverty.

35. While programme evaluations are invariably required and we take great pride in commissioning rigorous and challenging evaluators to assess our programmes, these rarely result in substantive discussion about the significance of the evaluation findings, or how FCDO would plan to weave them into subsequent programme design.

36. It is crucial that going forward, people living in extreme poverty and a strong understanding of their context guides the choice of outcomes included at the programme design stage and measured.

What effect have the cuts in UK ODA had on the FCDO’s ability to address extreme poverty? What evidence is there to suggest poverty was a key consideration in deciding where the cuts should fall?

37. The UK aid cuts resulted in a massive scale-down, and in many cases a complete closure of essential programmes that were focusing on poverty reduction, including Concern’s programmes. There is no evidence to suggest that poverty was indeed a key consideration in deciding how and where the cuts were made, nor has there been any communication from the government on this.

38. Concern’s Promoting Sustainable Partnerships for Empowered Resilience (PROSPER) programme in Malawi, and ‘Essential Healthcare for the Disadvantaged (EHD) programme in Bangladesh that were both completely cut mid-way through implementation, were targeting over 3.7 million of the poorest communities in these countries.

39. The PROSPER programme was a UK aid funded multi-stakeholder resilience and climate change programme supporting the Government of Malawi to end the recurrent cycle of crises and humanitarian assistance, and contribute to the reduction in extreme poverty. Funded through its flagship Building Resilience and Adapting to Climate Change (BRACC) programme PROSPER aimed to reach 1.1 million vulnerable people over four years.

40. It intended to reduce the impact of climate shocks, respond to seasonal consumption needs, support the design of social safety nets, and generate evidence and knowledge to inform government policy.

41. An evaluation of the BRACC/PROSPER programme in December 2021 found that programme participants and households adopted more favourable agriculture practices, increased livestock ownership, and showed a better ability to respond to shocks like drought.

42. Access and use of financial services such as savings and loans also showed an improvement. There was some evidence of positive impact on income and on food security and nutrition status, though the length of programme implementation was insufficient to assess longer term impact.

43. The Essential Healthcare for the Disadvantaged (EHD) programme in Bangladesh intended to bring affordable, accessible and quality health services to over 2.6 million disadvantaged people in some of the hardest to reach areas, including 140,000 people living with a disability. This programme was an important part of the National Health Strategy of the Government of Bangladesh.

44. This programme did not just address health needs and offer a social safety net to some of the most in need and marginalised populations, it enabled the provision of timely Covid-19 response, and was helping to contribute to greater resilience to climate shocks in these populations.

45. However, as a result of having to end these programmes at short notice, the ability to continue having positive impact on the lives of the extreme poor, and improving their capacities to resist and adapt to shocks have suffered a serious set-back.

46. These cuts will also contribute to a weakened UK standing on important global forums as a development leader and influencer to tackle extreme poverty, and in faith in its efforts.

How the FCDO can play a more effective part in the eradication of poverty as a convener, thought leader and investor.

As an investor

47. As above, the new UK International Development Strategy should firstly recommit to spending at least 50% of UK aid to fragile and conflict affected places, with clear poverty indicators to guide where these investments are targeted.

48. Secondly, it must ensure that FCDO investments continue to drive the greatest impact in progressing the Sustainable Development Goals by focusing on sectors that are shown to be most effective in reducing poverty and inequality[2]. These include health and nutrition, social protection, and education. All of its investments must focus on strengthening gender equality.

49. While we welcome the UK’s commitment under the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth agenda to spend GBP 1.5 billion for nutrition from 2022-2030, it represents a drastic reduction compared to the previous commitment. The UK must treat this as a starting point, as opposed to the upper limit for nutrition investment.

50. With climate change and conflict emerging as key drivers of hunger, poverty, and inequality, the UK must invest in long-term resilience building to climate change, and in both conflict prevention and resolution. This includes support for programming and initiatives that build social cohesion and help address underlying drivers of conflict.   

51. Lastly, UK aid must strengthen localisation by enabling context-specific, and community-driven efforts with communities being a core part of the design, development and ownership of the programmes. Development programmes must recognise, respect and build on local resources and assets, and investment in national and local civil society must be scaled up.  

52. While the aid cuts have severely undermined the scale of efforts in tackling extreme poverty, and threatened the progress made over many decades, the positive examples discussed above indicate there is great learning and best practice to build on.

As a thought leader: Putting the SDGs at the heart of the UK’s International Development Strategy

53. Achieving the 2030 Agenda must be the goal of the UK’s International Development Strategy, with a strong commitment to focus on the furthest behind first.

54. Crucial to improving the long term poverty-reduction impact of UK aid is the need to scale up multi-annual and flexible funding that allows for rapid anticipatory action, and timely adaptation to changing contexts, particularly in fragile settings that are prone to frequent shocks.

55. The UK should set out how it will seek to improve the international humanitarian and development system, to redress enduring global power imbalances and systemic inequalities, and to ensure decolonised and decentralised development.

56. The UK government should help reshape the international development approach, recognising other governments and local communities as equal and expert partners, and bringing in and promoting the voices of those who have been traditionally excluded from conversations.

57. Importantly, the UK must build on the institutional expertise and experience that DFID has built over decades, while simultaneously harnessing the knowledge and resources of FCDO partners, especially of those on the ground, to better understand the causes of poverty and develop effective responses to them. 

As a convener: Use the UK’s full diplomatic weight to advance humanitarian principles 

58. Wider UK government international policy and activity must work coherently to build the strategic, political and operational leadership required to develop a global humanitarian system fit for future challenges.   

59. There are opportunities for the UK to build upon its reputation as a humanitarian donor. These include the combined diplomatic weight of the FCDO, UK embassies, and the UK's seat on the UN Security Council should be operationalised to support humanitarian access that is compatible with humanitarian principles and International Humanitarian Law. 

60. The UK must also demonstrate an unqualified commitment to Humanitarian Principles and Good Humanitarian Donor behaviour. Demonstrating that the allocation of UK humanitarian funding is driven by need, and not compromised by national security or counter-migration agendas is critical in maintaining safety and access for frontline responders. The perceived or actual politicisation of humanitarian assistance puts the lives of aid workers at risk and prevents aid from reaching those in the most vulnerable situations. 

61. The UK must invest greater efforts into becoming a thought leader on humanitarian issues at the Security Council that impact the lives of people entrenched in extreme poverty.

62. The UK has so far voted in favor of relevant resolutions on humanitarian issues, for example the Resolutions 2417 on conflict and hunger, and 2615 on humanitarian exceptions to sanctions in Afghanistan.

63. It must now go a step further to be more authoritative on these issues and work and position itself as a thought leader on relevant humanitarian issues. Under its presidency of the Security Council last year, the UK convened an informal meeting on conflict and hunger with like-minded member states. However, there has been little movement on this agenda since, with no follow up on actions discussed at the meeting. The UK must push the Security Council to do more on this issue, and ensure actions follow the words.

64. With conflict driving rapid increases in hunger worldwide, and its disproportionate impacts on the world’s poorest people, the UK must accelerate efforts taken by the UNSC on conflict and hunger, and issues in relation to humanitarian access to have a significant impact on levels of poverty worldwide.